BHARAT PULVERISING MILLS P LIMITED Vs. SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU REVENUE DEPARTMENT MADRAS 9

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the dismissal of the Writ petition No. 3668 of 1977 which was filed for quashing a portion of the order in G. O. Ms. No. 2625, Revenue dated 27. 12. 1976 and for appropriate directions.

(2.) THE appellant is a Company owning certain lands in Thiruvottiyur village. THE Assistant Commissioner of Urban land Tax in his proceedings dated 17. 8. 1976 determined the total area of the land held by the appellant and the market value thereof as on 1. 7. 1971 and levied urban land tax in the sum of Rs. 93,873. 77 and made a demand for payment of the same for the period from 1st July, 1975. This assessment order is questioned on the ground that in determining the market value as on 1. 7. 1971 for the purpose of determining the urban land tax payable by the appellant, the assistant Commissioner should have taken the value as on 1. 7. 1971 at double the value as on 1. 7. 1963 as in the case of the urban land within the city of Madras applying G. O. Ms. No. 2625, Revenue dated 27. 12. 1976. It may be mentioned, however, that under this Government Order this principle of adopting the double value as on 1. 7. 1963 is to be applied only in respect of urban lands as far as the city is concerned. It is because of the restrictive application of this double valuation of the market value as on 1. 7. 1963, in-order to determine the market value as on 1. 7. 1971 only to the Madras City is concerned, the writ petitioner questioned the validity of the Government order and contended that the restriction of the applicability of the method of valuation for the City of Madras alone is arbitrary, unreasonable and has no relation to the nexus sought to be achieved and that therefore it offends article 14 of the Constitution and has to be quashed.

(3.) THE impugned Government Order is stated to have been made under section 27 (1) which reads as follows : 27 (1 ). THE Government, if satisfied that the payment of urban land tax in respect of any class of urban lands or by any class of persons will cause undue hardship, they may, subject to such rules as may be made in this behalf, by order, - (a) exempt such lands or persons from the payment of the urban land tax, or (b) reduce the amount of such urban land tax whether prospectively or retrospectively. We are not sure as to how the principles to be adopted in determining the market value for the purpose of levy of tax could be brought within those provisions of section 27 of the Act. If at all, the owners of the madras City Urban Lands may be able to contend that they are liable to pay tax as on 1. 7. 1963 and not as on 1. 7. 1971 or at double the value as on 1. 7. 1963. But that question does not arise for consideration. Suffice it to say that there is nothing discriminatory so far as the Madras Belt Area owners are concerned. THE Act provided as already stated, that they are liable to pay tax with effect from 1. 7. 1971. That is a clear provision under the Act itself and that could not be modified. This Government Order also did not purport to modify that provision. No question of discrimination therefore could arise on the facts and circumstances of this case. THE discrimination, if any, as already stated in bringing into force on different dates and applying different market values with reference to different dates was due to the fact that the act was made applicable to the Urban Land in the City of Madras on different dates and that with reference to the lands in the Madras City Belt Area on a later date. THEre is therefore no substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that there was any invidious discrimination in the impugned Government Order offending any of the provisions of the Constitution of India. THE writ appeal accordingly fails and it is dismissed. But there will be no order as to costs.